Enhancement Effect of Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticle-Based MRI Contrast Agent at Different Concentrations and Magnetic Field Strengths

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agents
(MRI-CM) are significant in the clinical and biological imaging as
they have the ability to alter the normal tissue contrast, thereby
affecting the signal intensity to enhance the visibility and detectability
of images. Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles,
coated with dextran or carboxydextran are currently available for
clinical MR imaging of the liver. Most SPIO contrast agents are
T2 shortening agents and Resovist (Ferucarbotran) is one of a
clinically tested, organ-specific, SPIO agent which has a low
molecular carboxydextran coating. The enhancement effect of
Resovist depends on its relaxivity which in turn depends on factors
like magnetic field strength, concentrations, nanoparticle properties,
pH and temperature. Therefore, this study was conducted to
investigate the impact of field strength and different contrast
concentrations on enhancement effects of Resovist. The study
explored the MRI signal intensity of Resovist in the physiological
range of plasma from T2-weighted spin echo sequence at three
magnetic field strengths: 0.47 T (r1=15, r2=101), 1.5 T (r1=7.4,
r2=95), and 3 T (r1=3.3, r2=160) and the range of contrast
concentrations by a mathematical simulation. Relaxivities of r1 and r2
(L mmol-1 Sec-1) were obtained from a previous study and the selected
concentrations were 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5,
0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 mmol/L. T2-weighted images were
simulated using TR/TE ratio as 2000 ms /100 ms. According to the
reference literature, with increasing magnetic field strengths, the
r1 relaxivity tends to decrease while the r2 did not show any
systematic relationship with the selected field strengths. In parallel,
this study results revealed that the signal intensity of Resovist at lower
concentrations tends to increase than the higher concentrations. The
highest reported signal intensity was observed in the low field strength
of 0.47 T. The maximum signal intensities for 0.47 T, 1.5 T and 3 T
were found at the concentration levels of 0.05, 0.06 and 0.05 mmol/L,
respectively. Furthermore, it was revealed that, the concentrations
higher than the above, the signal intensity was decreased
exponentially. An inverse relationship can be found between the field
strength and T2 relaxation time, whereas, the field strength was
increased, T2 relaxation time was decreased accordingly. However,
resulted T2 relaxation time was not significantly different between
0.47 T and 1.5 T in this study. Moreover, a linear correlation of
transverse relaxation rates (1/T2, s–1) with the concentrations of
Resovist can be observed. According to these results, it can conclude
that the concentration of SPIO nanoparticle contrast agents and the
field strengths of MRI are two important parameters which can affect the signal intensity of T2-weighted SE sequence. Therefore, when MR
imaging those two parameters should be considered prudently.

Authors:

• Bimali Sanjeevani Weerakoon
• Toshiaki Osuga
• Takehisa Konishi

Keywords:

• Concentration
• Resovist
• Field strength
• Relaxivity
• Signal intensity.

References:

[1] W. Bauer and K. Schculten, “Theory of contrast agents in magnetic
resonance imaging: coupling of spin relaxation and transport,” Magnetic
resonance in medicine, vol. 26. pp. 16–39, 1992.
[2] C. F. G. C. Geraldes and S. Laurent, “Classification and basic properties
of contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging,” Contrast Media Mol.
Imaging, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2009.
[3] T.-H. Shin, Y. Choi, S. Kim, and J. Cheon, “Recent advances in magnetic
nanoparticle-based multi-modal imaging,” Chem. Soc. Rev., vol. 44, no.
14, pp. 4501–4516, 2015.
[4] M. A. Busquets, J. Estelrich, and M. J. Sánchez-Martín, “Nanoparticles in
magnetic resonance imaging: from simple to dual contrast agents,” Int. J.
Nanomedicine, vol. 140, no. 10, pp. 1727–1741, 2015.
[5] M. Rohrer, H. Bauer, J. Mintorovitch, M. Requardt, and H.-J. Weinmann,
“Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at
different magnetic field strengths.,” Invest. Radiol., vol. 40, no. 11, pp.
715–724, 2005.
[6] A. Bjørnerud, “The Physics of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Department
of Physics,” no. March, 2008.
[7] J. Huang, X. Zhong, L. Wang, L. Yang, and H. Mao, “Improving the
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast and Detection Methods with
Engineered Magnetic Nanoparticles,” Theranostics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 86–
102, 2012.
[8] N. Arsalani, H. Fattahi, and M. Nazarpoor, “Synthesis and
characterization of PVP-functionalized superparamagnetic Fe3O4
nanoparticles as an MRI contrast agent,” eXPRESS Polym. Lett., vol. 4,
no. 6, pp. 329–338, Jun. 2010.
[9] S. Riyahi-Alam, S. Haghgoo, E. Gorji, and N. Riyahi-Alam, “Size
reproducibility of gadolinium oxide based nanomagnetic particles for
cellular magnetic resonance imaging: effects of functionalization,
chemisorption and reaction conditions.,” Iran. J. Pharm. Res. IJPR, vol.
14, no. 1, pp. 3–14, 2015.
[10] K. Takeshita, S. Kinoshita, and S. Okazaki, “Simple Method for Quanti fi
cation of Gadolinium Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agents
Using ESR Spectroscopy,” vol. 60, no. January, pp. 31–36, 2012.
[11] R. M. Taylor, D. L. Huber, T. C. Monson, A.-M. S. Ali, M. Bisoffi, and L.
O. Sillerud, “Multifunctional iron platinum stealth immunomicelles:
targeted detection of human prostate cancer cells using both fluorescence
and magnetic resonance imaging.,” J. Nanopart. Res., vol. 13, no. 10, pp.
4717–4729, 2011.
[12] C. W. Jung and P. Jacobs, “Physical and chemical properties of
superparamagnetic iron oxide MR contrast agents: ferumoxides,
ferumoxtran, ferumoxsil.,” Magn. Reson. Imaging, vol. 13, no. 5, pp.
661–74, Jan. 1995.
[13] V. Runge, “Contrast Agents: Safety Profile.,” http://clinical-mri.com/pdf/
Contrast Agents/Contrast Agents - Safety Profile amended table.pdf,
pp.1–6, 2008.
[14] M.-C. Hsieh and J.-H. Chen, “Quantification of MRI Contrast Agent
Concentration Using Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping,” Trans.
Japanese Soc. Med. Biol. Eng., p. R–240, Sep. 2013.
[15] Y.-X. J. Wang, “Superparamagnetic iron oxide based MRI contrast
agents: Current status of clinical application.,” Quant. Imaging Med.
Surg., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35–40, 2011.
[16] A. D. Elster, “How much contrast is enough?. Dependence of
enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequence.,” Eur. Radiol.,
vol. 7 Suppl 5, pp. 276–80, Jan. 1997.
[17] S. K. Li, E.-K. Jeong, and M. S. Hastings, “Magnetic resonance imaging
study of current and ion delivery into the eye during transscleral and
transcorneal iontophoresis.,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., vol. 45, no. 4,
pp. 1224–31, 2004.
[18] B. Soediono, Nanoparticles in Biomedical Imaging, Emerging
Technologies and Applications, vol. 53. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
1989.
[19] A. M. Reddy, B. K. Kwak, H. J. Shim, C. Ahn, H. S. Lee, Y. J. Suh, and E.
S. Park, “In vivo tracking of mesenchymal stem cells labeled with a novel
chitosan-coated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles using 3.0T
MRI,” J. Korean Med. Sci., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 211–219, 2010.
[20] A. Hill and C. K. Payne, “Impact of serum proteins on MRI contrast
agents: cellular binding and T2 relaxation,” RSC Adv., vol. 4, pp. 31735–
31744, 2014.
[21] S. Exhibit, L. I. Lanczi, and M. Beresova, “Comparing low-field and high
field relaxometry properties of solutions and clinically used contrast
agents,” 2013.